~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

The effects of love?

We know God is love. We know, too, how little most of us do by way of demonstrating this. We have the perfect excuse ready, which is that we need to express our abhorrence of bad behaviour; if others do the same when we behave badly, we reciprocate, and the whole thing goes round again. If we were charged with being a Christian and the evidence was in the form of love, how many of us would even go to court, let alone get a sentence? In this context, it was lovely to see that the Pope and the Moscow patriarch are going to get together in Cuba. No one should hold their breath, as Chalcedon451 said to me, Orthodox ecclesiology means that the Patriarch speaks for no one save himself – but even so, it is a good sign that the two men want to meet – Churchill was right about ‘jaw, jaw’ being better than ‘war, war’. The history between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church has been one from which, as with so much of our history, no one emerges well, and this, we can hope, will bring a new spirit to that relationship – and mark a point when both sides turn from suspicion.

That won’t mean that all their respective followers will. Some, not least on the Orthodox side, will cry out against ‘syncretism’ and ‘heresy’. They ought to remember, but won’t, that whilst both claim they are the only Church founded by Jesus, Jesus has not confirmed it. Humility is a concomitant of love. Some people seem to be arguing that you can’t be a member of the Church until you clean up your life, others that you can be and you don’t need to clean up your life, we love you as you are, but for me, this seems to miss the point of being with Christ – it is by being with him that he cleans up our lives from within. Too often we seem to ignore the working of the Holy Ghost. Too often we act as though going to Church and taking the blessed sacrament will cure us. Too often we act as though Bible study and being ‘good’ will cure us. I am not disparaging any of these things, they are all parts of the cure for what ails us – but they are not what is at the heart of the cure – that is the operation of the Holy Ghost on our hearts and minds. It is not possible to be in Christ and for him to be in us and for us to be the same. It is perfectly possible that we sin, but if the sin does not seem worse, if we are not more tormented by remorse, then why would we seek to go to confession and be absolved?

God’s love reaches out for us. The Prodigal sought nothing from his father save a menial job and a full stomach and a roof over his head. In that he is the prototype of the sinner when repentance dawns. He does not say that he is sorry, he shows he is. All his hopes are dust. What revives him are the actions of his father. His father is on the lookout for him, his father welcomes him with extravagant gestures of love – ones which call forth from the elder son a complaint, because, after all, the Prodigal has not cleaned up his life; what guarantee is there that he won’t revert to his previous behaviour? Surely some sort of punishment is in order, some period of probation, some caution on the part of his father, who, after all, has already blown half the farm on the younger son? None of these caveats is unreasonable, what is unreasonable and unjust is the love of the father. But the father knows that the effect of that love will be to redeem the younger son – he has been punished, he has learned one sort of lesson – that the world is a hard place and that hedonism, whilst it gives you false friends in the heady days of wine and roses, leaves you bereft when the money runs out. How easy from that to drive home the lesson that the younger son needs to be penitent, to pay his dues, to work his way back. That, after all, is also the way of the world. But the father’s way is not the way of this world. The lesson the Prodigal needs is the one he gets – that love redeems all, and that it happens from within – and it won’t stop, unless we harden our hearts.

Newman once commented that the natural state of our hearts was to be hard as stone, and that as with hard soil, sometimes they needed to be broken to become fertile soils in which the seed of the Word can grow. Faith and hope are wonderful things – but without love they are nothing, and love transforms us – if we will but open our hard hearts. Let us pray we see that manifested in the forthcoming meeting between the Russian Patriarch and the Patriarch of the West.

Post navigation

38 thoughts on “The effects of love?”

Jess, there seems to be much confusion these days around, love, mercy, forgiveness and the like and it all boils down to a rather ‘sweet’ understanding of these things. It takes no account of things such as obedience, obligations nor religion for that matter.

The forgiveness you speak of is tied to love via the virtue of long-suffering and does not mean that the graces or ‘gifts’ of love and reconciliation are instantly that of the sinner. It is only a confirmation that these gifts were always there, are there now, for the taking. But like the question of the rich man, “what else must I do to have eternal life?”, a yoke (though His yoke is easy) of love which binds one (ligature) in an ob-ligation (to move toward this binding) must be present. Obedience to love, is obedience to Christ. Without the ‘doing’ added to the ‘hearing’ one does not have obedience. A religion reflects in Her teachings what the penitent must do to have eternal life.

Somehow, today, we are all to pretend that we are the father in the parable of the prodigal Son . . . though this is God’s role and not ours. We cannot read hearts and we cannot not know a man but by his actions. I can be long-suffering in my bearing with the sin of another, and I am obliged to be; as this is an expression of my love for Christ, His Church and my brothers and sisters in sin. But that does not mean that I am not to say to my brothers and sisters or insinuate in any manner that they are now ‘fully accepted’ as being in full obedience of what our religion binds us to: that is the penitents obligation.

And since we are all sinners, of course we need our brothers and sisters to point out our blindspots and help one another live up to our obligations to our faith and religion in a fuller manner; to act with obedience . . . doing that which we ‘hear.’

Perhaps the hardest thing our religion binds us to is the thing we find hardest? For some that is what the eldest brother found hardest. Where, in the parable, do we see the Father demanding the things that you, or for that matter I, might think appropriate? I am the eldest brother when I read this. I do find it scandalous that the Father just welcomes the wretch. Sure, he’s had a hard time, but who brought that on but him? Sure he’s sorry, who wouldn’t be ending up where he ended up? I’d want to see some sign he’d really repented, really learnt his lesson – but that’s not the lesson Jesus is giving me here, the one I’m getting is that I am wrong to impose these things before I love. I don’t find that easy at all, I find it really hard.

Jess, that the love of God is unconditional is not the hard part but in how He manifests His Will. This parable is not the only indication that we have. What do you make of the God of Job? It is not a saccharine love but a virile love. This sweet and sappy love is what the world offers and now too often what the churches offer. I don’t need the Church or the members thereof to confirm me in my sin . . . I have the world to do that. In my estimation it is this effeminate portrayal of Christianity that has witnessed the mass exodus of men from their pews.

I would that the whole world condemn me in my sins so that I might one day discover that this sin is written on my own heart and that I need to repent and turn my heart to God . . . binding myself to His Will and not mine or the world’s.

And I do not think of appropriateness in regards to the prodigal son or the story of Job or in the preaching of Paul to throw sinners who will not try to reform their ways out of the community. God and the Church has a responsibility to those He is Fathering to protect them from wolves or wolves in sheeps clothing. It only takes a little yeast to leaven the whole . . . and the Church might at least make it clear that if you are only going to give the faith lip service then your place is in the world, not the Church.

Job, we are told is a deliberate attempt by Satan on a good man, and God allows it. I don’t really think we can extrapolate much from that as it is a special case.

If we struggle with the consequences of God’s love being unconditional, is that the sin in us talking? There is, indeed, something very unjust, to our way of thinking, in the freedom and lavishness with which God’s Grace is available. Yes, for many of us, it would suit us better to have our sinfulness stressed, even by the world, as that would do something for the guilt we feel – it would be what we consider our just deserts. But in that, are we judging by God’s standards or ours?

I am not sure what ‘virile love’ is. Is it shown by the Father in the parable of the Prodigal, or by Jesus when he talks to the woman at the well, or to the woman taken in adultery? Are we sure God wants sin written on our heart, and that we need that before we repent? Is that really man’s wisdom insisting it knows better than the mystery of unconditional love? If it is unconditional, it means there are no conditions – not even that we fess up to our sin first. That comes if we really know him – there’s no way we remain the same once we know him, and if we do remain the same, then we don’t know him.

If God can love us as we are and not cast us out put stretch out his arms for us, why should the church not do the same – is it wiser than God?

God and the Church never tire of reaching out to the sinner. The question is obviously how you approach the sinner and confront the sin both for ourselves and as a witness to others . . . especially the world at large?

And it is not sin that is written in our hearts but the understanding of right and wrong. That we love the sinner and hate the sin is getting to the point now where we are to love the sinner and disregard their sin. That we tell one another that God loves you or that we love you is only half the story – that is the effeminate theology today. To give them the other half of the story is virile theology . . . to advise them to “go and sin no more.” A mother’s way with her children is only half of the story. The father may give just punishment (penance) or admonish one to do better or to stop a certain behavior. Both responses are done out of love and both responses are not sufficient on their own. That is why we have families consisting of fathers and mothers and why the church is seen as a mother and the leaders of the Catholic faith (who share in Christ’s mission) act as Fathers to the people. They forgive sin but only after they make an act of contrition and do penance. Telling them that they love them anyway isn’t going to magically wash away their sins. All it does, as far as I can tell, is keep them from going to Confession and continue in the same old sins without worrying about it.

I see, but still wonder if this is the wisdom of man talking? Yes, we want people to make an act of contrition and do penance, but what are our grounds for imposing that understanding on God? They would seem to be conditions – to me perfectly reasonable ones – but where does Jesus tell us God’s love depends on our actions?

I agree that telling anyone we love them isn’t going to wash away our sins by magic, but then nor is going to confession and then repeating our sins. What is needed is the interior change – and that comes when we know God loves us – then we truly begin to hate sin and flee it 🙂 xx

It is impossible to know the Mind of God as the last few chapters of Job tell us: when God finally appears and presents nothing but unanswerable questions to Job about the awesomeness of God’s Being. We know only that we are called to be sorrow and penance . . . to right wrongs when possible and to do all we can to cooperate with God’s love and grace. If we will not use our freewill in such a way . . . then it is not only a wasted gift but merely a means to damn us. Should we not exercise freewill as God has given us a way to do it properly? And what brings on your question concerning the idea of imposing our actions on the unconditional love of God? Nobody has said that God does not love the sinner . . . what we have said is that God is almost begging the sinner to change his ways, seek forgiveness and abide in His love . . . by returning His love. That God loves us is not going to keep us out of Hell if we do not heed His call and His pleas.

Are we called to those things by anything other than sincere repentance? That seems to me to be at the heart of this. If we know God then we repent, if we repent and we do not know God, we go through an external process. God loves us when we are sinners, not just when we repent, surely?

Yes, His love for us is the very thing that calls us to repentance. Why would you repent if you did not know something of God . . . as imperfect as our understanding is of Him? He did not leave us orphans, He has given us more than enough reasons to believe and to love Him. Again that God loves sinners though He will one day separate sheep from goats is of no use to the sinner if he does not understand the stakes or recognize the God of Love.

Also, however, I think I would add to that comment by saying that the point of this parable and many others is what he simply declared:

Luke 15:7

7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

That to me is what the elder son was guilty of as well as those who labored all day and got the same wage: feeling that they are not being treated fairly. In other words are we jealous that someone who lived a life of sin can get the same reward of heaven on their deathbed at the last hour after living a life of sin? Some may be, but I think we all used to ‘get it’ when the gospels were read. Now we seem to have read far more into these parables than what is actually there.

It is worth noting there that 99% do not need to do penance, which is interesting, since we are all sinners. I’ve never known what to make of that reference, except that it emphasises how happy we make God when we do repent. It is God who feels the joy.

I don’t think God does treat us fairly – by our idea of fair. The eldest son and the labourers are me – I feel jolly irritated at times – but that’s for me to work on. If I feel that way, and I do, what is God telling me about what I need to change?

I haven’t met many practicing Christians who are bothered with the fairness issue. As to the 99% . . . it is a parable. We are all supposed to understand that He is referring to each of us as the 1%. At least that is how I have always read this. We should accuse ourselves first and try to repair our lives. If others are struggling and ask for help we are of most help when we too have struggled and overcome some form of suffering. As Fr. Groeschel said: if you want counsel on suffering, find some joyous person who has lived through far worse suffering that you. Their counsel will be good.

Jess I think we all have a sense of God’s Justice written in our hearts and that we don’t need try to complicate it overmuch. We have duties in the Christian life and if we perform them we are acting with due justice . . . to best of our ability. We will never have any virtue, no matter which one you choose, perfectly as the Father. But we can be as perfect as God has made us to be: and that is what we will be in Heaven . . . our will, will be nothing more than a refelection of His Will. This side of heaven we struggle with it . . . though we know it is hard, we know the direction it is leading us.

I agree, but Jesus identifies several times our tendency to want to see another sinner somehow punished or treated differently, and that seems to me something I struggle with in my own life, and I try never to forget if ‘justice’ were to be done on me, I should fry for ever. I am saved by his sacrifice, I am utterly unworthy of that gift, and struggle to be humble enough just to accept it 🙂 xx

Well, we know the difference between sins that hurt other people an those that don’t. Most do . . . but not to the extent that they deserve a special handling; such as murder and the like. And even though they might do penance here and they might do penance in Purgatory they too, can find their way to Heaven by His Love and Mercy. So what we endure here is trifling but it matters with justice if we are to keep our friends our children or our flocks from being torn to pieces by allowing the world to come among us and devour us. Wolves without and within must be dealt with. Paul did. Now we must.

This, from St Isaac (via NES this time) seems relevant:
Mercy and justice in one soul is like a man who worships God and the idols in one house. Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is the equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves; and when it makes recompense, it does not incline to one side or show respect of persons. Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot co-exist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy.” (St Isaac of Nineveh, Ascetical Homilies I.51. p. 379)

“The rule of justice is plain, namely, that a good man ought not to swerve from the truth, not to inflict any unjust loss on anyone, nor to act in any way deceitfully or fraudulently.” __ St. Ambrose: On the Duties of the Clergy.

“Justice . . . is the virtue that gives to each his due.” __ St. Augustine: On Freewill

I’m sorry, but justice is considered a virtue in the Catholic Church and I hold by it and think it not opposed to mercy . . . in fact, being just, is to exercise mercy properly.

That is man’s idea of justice – is it God’s? If we each got our ‘due’ we’d all be in hell. What did you or I do that means it is ‘just’ that we should be forgiven and have the chance of heaven. We can’t do anything to ‘merit’ salvation – it is free – is that ‘just’ as man reads justice?

So what, Jess? We know that in God’s mind, since we were both body and spirit that it was right and just to give us a savior. That only tells us of our dignity. If we are to judge even the angels, then we can judge our own as St. Paul admonished the members of his church.

As I have tried to explain, I identify with the elder son and with those workers who have been there all day – it seems to me God is telling me that his ways are not mine and I should try to accommodate myself to a real unconditionality when it comes to his love. I struggle with that – but it seems he wants me to 🙂 xx

That these others may be found in Heaven shouldn’t disturb us. We get what was promised. If others receive that which they didn’t deserve but received it fully out of Mercy, then we cannot fault God or another for their good fortune and the Generosity of God for that particular soul.

I think it only appears so, my dear friend. Nobody is going to fault you for urging others not to place all their hope in the off chance that Christ might show them mercy. People want to know how they can find happiness in this life and eternal happiness in the next. If we are doing God’s business, we will tell them . . . start with love by all means but finish the story . . . don’t leave them hanging (so to speak). 🙂 xx

This, from Fr Kimel’s blog seems relevant:
‘God is angry with us, and he’s been angry with us since the day we were born. But if we repent of our sins, he will change his mind, forgive us, and give us eternal life, as long as we continue to believe in him and avoid mortal sins. But we need to be careful, because if we trip up, God will turn on us at a moment’s notice.

Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants tell different versions of the story; but the popular narrative remains constant: God is a God of conditional love. If we fulfill the conditions he specifies, he will be to us loving and merciful; if we do not, he will be to us wrathful and punishing. God is Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Which one we meet depends on our performance.’

Sorry, Jess, those words of his seemed more like a projection of something he also thought at one time. I have not and as stated I see no problem wth the unconditional love of God and the exercise of justice, repentance, sorrow, penance etc. They all work together for the Glory of God.

The Orthodox and the Romans cannot be reconciled because the bishop of Rome makes a claim to universal jurisdiction on doctrinal matters. This stands in sharp contrast to the recognized prodcedure that existed amongst both Orthodox and Roman traditions until the 11th century: the council. Joint councils, bringing together both East and West, were the ultimate tribunals to solve the standing issues, but the German-oriented reformed papacy of the 11th century is not comfortable with this type of conciliarity.

The bishop of Rome is, of course, first among equals, he enjoys primacy of honor, but he does not enjoy a supremacy of power and jurisdiction. Again, the Pope is the first bishop in the Church, but that does not destroy the essential equality of all bishops. And I appreciate that the current bishop of Rome almost always addresses himself as the bishop of Rome, that means something to me, but the divide on this issue is too large to be overcome by simple gestures of kindness and respect–like the meeting talked about in the OP. There is no way to address the relatively minor differences of theology and eccesiology because there is no agreement on Church authority. And Rome has made it such that there can never be ecclesiastical communion between East and West.

I love my brothers in Christ, the Roman Catholics, and there is obviously a lot of agreement between East and West, but I doubt very much that we will ever enjoy the sacred meal together. But, God willing, I am wrong about that.

Jesus asked, “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” And after they answered Jesus asked, “But who do you say that I am?” And after Simon answered, at this moment in salvation history, Our Lord Jesus Christ changed his name to Peter (Rock) and declared He would build His Church on Peter. At the same time Jesus also gave the “Keys of the Kingdom” to Peter. (Matt 16: 13-20) The other Apostles were to get the power to bind and loose, but only Peter got the keys. And they understood because this is what happened to Eliakim. (Isaiah 22:15 and forward)

So, both the Romans and the “would be” Orthodox believed this from the time of Jesus until the 11th century. It was Jesus that destroyed your so called “the essential equality of all bishops.”

Steve, let us grant for the sake of argument that I’ve got my history wrong, the simple fact is that Rome views infallibility as the prerogative of the Pope; and the Orthodox believe that in matters of faith the final decision is not the Pope’s alone, but a Council representing all the bishops of the Church, that this was the common procedure of the Church for a thousand years is, I suppose, a mere historical coincidence. But, whatever the history, we have two different conceptions of visible organization of the Church. And with the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870 on papal authority there is no way to reconcile these two conceptions, at least that is how I see it. The other theological and ecclesiological differences, the Filioque and such, are merely the result of cultural and historical differences that can be, and almost were, overcome, but the Roman conception of Church authority has made East and West incompatible, imho.

However, the situation looked at purely as a matter of history, I will stand by my claim that until the 11th century, however much tension existed between EAst and West, there was a mutually recognized procedure for solving difficulties: the council. Indeed the crisis which set Photius against Pope Nicholas I, which one can mark, at least concretely, as the beginning of the schism, although one can trace conflict back to the 4th century, was ended by the last council to follow that procedure, and one, at least in the Orthodox Church, that ranks right near the ecumenical councils in terms of authority. So, I cannot accept the claim that the Pope has always been viewed in the Church, since the early days of primitive Christianity, as possessing universal or absolute external power and jurisdiction. But, I suppose, that is something we will simply have to agree to disagree on. Christ is in our midst!

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris